Harvey v. Harvey
| Decision Date | 11 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 5807.,5807. |
| Citation | 123 A. 82 |
| Parties | HARVEY v. HARVEY. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions and Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Arthur P. Sumner, Judge.
Petition for divorce by Josiah H. Harvey against Minnie Harvey. Decree for petitioner. Prom subsequent decree declaring that execution for arrears should be vacated and set aside, defendant appeals and excepts. Exception overruled, appeal sustained, and decree reversed in part.
Cooney & Cooney and Philip C. Joslin, all of Providence, for petitioner.
Fitzgerald & Higgins, of Providence, for respondent.
This is a petition for divorce, and comes before this court upon the exception and the appeal of the respondent. On January 25, 1921, the petitioner, Josiah H. Harvey, filed his petition for divorce in the superior court, in which petition he alleged that the respondent had been guilty of extreme cruelty and of gross misbehavior and wickedness repugnant to and in violation of the marriage covenant. On March 9, 1921, the respondent filed a motion for an allowance for the maintenance of herself and her minor child, Ruth B. Harvey, during the pendency of the petition, and for counsel, witness fees, etc. After a hearing upon said motion a decree was entered by which the said petitioner, Josiah H. Harvey, was ordered to pay to the said respondent the sum of $38 per week commencing May 7, 1921, and each and every week thereafter until further order of the court.
On March 30, 1921, Minnie Harvey, the respondent, filed a cross-petition praying for a decree divorcing her from the bed and board of, and from further cohabitation with, her husband, Josiah H. Harvey. From April 30 to May 3, 1923, a hearing was had upon these petitions, and on May 5, 1923, the superior court filed its decision granting a divorce to the petitioner, Josiah H. Harvey, and denying the cross-petition of the respondent. On May 9, 1923, the respondent filed her motion for a new trial, which, on June 23, 1923, was heard and denied, and to such denial she took an exception. On April 12, 1923, the petitioner filed a motion asking that the decree of May 2, 1921, allowing the respondent $38 per week for the maintenance of herself and daughter, be modified. Upon this motion a decree was entered on July 27, 1923.
This decree provided for the payment of $10 per week for the support of the daughter, Ruth B. Harvey, from and after May 5, 1923; that the respondent should have no further allowance for her own support, and that said decree should be entered as of May 5, 1923. This decree further declared that an execution in the sum of $342 which had been ordered and issued against the petitioner on July 10, 1923, covering weekly payments which the petitioner had been ordered to make, but which at the time of the issuance of said execution were in arrears, should be "vacated and set aside in all respects." From this decree the respondent has prosecuted her appeal to this court. She has also brought another bill of exceptions including the same matters covered by her appeal, apparently being in doubt as to the particular manner in which she should proceed in bringing the questions involved before this court.
In passing upon questions of a similar nature we have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duss v. Duss
...7 Lans. (N. Y.) 204; Swallow v. Swallow, 84, N. J. Eq. 109, 92 A. 872; Caldwell v. Caldwell, 189 N.C. 805, 128 S.E. 329; Harvey v. Harvey, 45 R.I. 383, 123 A. 82. The cases last cited also hold or intimate that the dismissal of the cause does not affect the right of the wife to collect accr......
-
Ex parte Asadoorian
...court has no power under guise of modification to expunge the amount of accrued allowance at the time of commitment. Harvey v. Harvey, 45 R. I. 385, 123 A. 82. Nor has the Supreme Court power to decree the execution satisfied "by reason of petitioner's punishment and imprisonment" up to thi......
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan
...39 R.I. 92, 97 A. 593; Hurvitz v. Hurvitz, 44 R.I. 243, 116 A. 661; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 44 R.I. 429, 117 A. 649; Harvey v. Harvey, 45 R.I. 383, 123 A. 82; Bridges v. Bridges, 46 R.I. 191, 125 A. 281; Smith v. Smith, 50 R.I. 278, 146 A. 626; Boyden v. Boyden, 50 R.I. 326, 147 A. 621, 6......
-
Sundlun v. Sundlun
...A.2d 118. These cases are factually distinguishable from the case at bar and are of no help to respondent. In our opinion Harvey v. Harvey, 45 R.I. 383, 123 A. 82, is controlling on this issue. In that case the husband filed for a divorce and the wife was awarded temporary support for herse......